Eternal Generation of the Son (Aseity)

[amazing grace]

This Arian perspective fails miserably. Why? Because it doesn't understand common essence between the GodHead and the relational properties of persons in the Godhead. The person of the Son in relation to the Father is begotten, and the Father is not begotten; He's Paternal in relations to the Son. But according to the divine essence of the Son (Aseity) he is not begotten.​

Given this perspective is not given by an Arian then it probably does fail.
God is not an essence. Jesus is not an essence. They do have a relationship as a Father and a Son just as we also have a relationship with the Father and His Son. God is the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ - God is also our God and Father.
True, God the Father is not begotten - Jesus is begotten being conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High. Where in the conception and birth records of Jesus, is he described as an essence?
Jesus was a man, a human being - the offspring of the woman (Genesis 3:15), a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18), the descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and from the lineage of David, etc. from the tribe of Judah.

Here in the book of Revelation Jesus says he is the Alpha and the Omega. This signifies his eternal nature.​

No, it does not signify his eternal nature. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end - all synonymous terms/titles. Both God and his only Son share in those terms.

Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Now, in John 1 it is clear of who Jesus is.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Now you have God the Father and God the Son mentioned together in Unity. His Eternal Essence, that you blatantly toss aside. Notice that everything made in creation was through Him (Jesus). So, now go read Genesis chapter 1 my friend, and tell what you see. ​

Where is the Father and the Son mentioned together in unity? Where is the term 'God the Son' ever used in scripture?

Those two verses are not even comparable nor carry the same meaning. God is the beginning in that He was there from the beginning and in the beginning he spoke creation into being - creation came into being through his 'word'. (By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. [Psalm 33:6]) Jesus was not in the beginning - the 'word', i.e. 'the word made flesh' was not in the beginning

I see from Genesis 1 God's Spirit moving over the waters. God's Spirit moving in creation as God speaks creation into existence:
2)...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.......3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters...and it was so....9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so....11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so., etc. As indicated in Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

 

[amazing grace]

No, no, no, no!!! I am amazed on what lengths you guys will go through to distort the truth. If he (Jesus) is not Eternal as you said, then why did he empty himself? And if you read the passages together without biblicism (nude scripture/eisegesis ), you will avoid distorting the truth.​

Why would Jesus have to be eternal to empty himself?

I went through the context and in the context Paul is teaching humility - Christ as an example - and we are to have the same attitude, the same mindset as Christ Jesus.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.​

This is a ambiguous verse and the ambiguity is in reading "the only begotten Son" and "the only begotten God". The majority of manuscripts read "only begotten Son," which is found in the KJV. However, earlier and diverse manuscripts often read "only begotten God" or "the unique God" (ESV, NASB1995, and NIV) You chose the NLT translation which also fits your theology.
Of course, my translation of choice would be 'the only begotten Son' because it is the Son, whom God gave, who came to declare/make known the Father.
And you have God is in closest relationship with God the Father. I guess one could and would have a close relationship with oneself.

Here you have the Perichoresis of the Father and Son (Dance of Love). In a relational aspect of the Godhead. The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) was assembled by Emperor Theodosius 1 to confirm the Nicene Creed and formally define the divinity of the Holy Spirit, completing the theological framework of the Trinity. It aimed to resolve lingering controversies over Arianism and affirm the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Emperor Theodosius I, convened this council to settle the theological, not just political, disputes surrounding the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The council affirmed the deity of Christ, using the term homoousios ("of one substance") to describe his relationship with the Father. This formed the original Nicene Creed. Jesus says, I and the Father are one. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I am who I am. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The word was with God, and the word is God. Isaiah speaks of seeing the glory of the Son in Isaiah 6:4.

The council was called officially end the Arian controversy, which had continued for decades after the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), and to affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit.
The council produced the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which expanded on the Nicene Creed by stating the Holy Spirit is "worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son". By One Faith in One Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.​

The term homoousios first appeared in 2nd-century Gnostic writings and Greek philosophical discourse. It was, however, controversial in Christian circles before Nicaea, as it was previously associated with Gnosticism, Sabellianism.
Whatever Jesus did, whatever Jesus accomplished was all to the glory of God his Father.

Jesus was worshipped as God. Because they knew who Jesus is!!! God incarnate!!! Immanuel, Elohim, I AM!!​

If someone worshipped Jesus AS God -- AS BEING ALMIGHTY GOD - they have committed idolatry.
Jesus was as the Son of God, the Messianic King, the King of the Kingdom of God.

 

[amazing grace]

Ante-Nicene Trinitarianism
​

We must recognize that Ante-Nicene Trinitarianism theology grew out of the Nascent church's affirmation, that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are God just as the Father is God.

Ante-Nicene refers to the period in Christian history before the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. It describes early church leaders, writings, and theology that predate the establishment of the Nicene Creed. The Nascent church's affirmation led to the production of statements that were creed-like in character and served as precursors of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Ante-Nicene writers include: Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen and Irenaeus.​

I'll stick to the Apostles Creed.

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic (universal) Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[brightfame52]

I believe the Mediatorial Manhood of Christ or the soul of the Man Christ was eternally generated, but not His Deity as the word Jn 1:1

 

[Ladodgers6]

Given this perspective is not given by an Arian then it probably does fail.
God is not an essence.

God possesses a Divine Essence or do you also disagree with this?

Jesus is not an essence.

Wrong again. Jesus does possess the full divine divinity as the Father. "I and the Father are one." If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

They do have a relationship as a Father and a Son just as we also have a relationship with the Father and His Son. God is the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ - God is also our God and Father.

Yes, they have a relationship Father and Son. The Father is Unbegotten and the Son is begotten. But the Son's aseity is not begotten. This is where your position conflate or straight out denies the Divine Essence of the Son (Homoousion). You need to understand this or you will fall into heresy which have already been condemned by the church.​

True, God the Father is not begotten - Jesus is begotten being conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High. Where in the conception and birth records of Jesus, is he described as an essence?
Jesus was a man, a human being - the offspring of the woman (Genesis 3:15), a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18), the descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and from the lineage of David, etc. from the tribe of Judah.

We do not deny this! But it is God incarnate who come to redeem His people form their sins. And the Word God, became flesh, to redeem those under the curse of the Law.

Matt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(Immanuel God with us)
​

Jesus was not born from man's corrupted seed, but from the Holy Spirit.​

No, it does not signify his eternal nature. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end - all synonymous terms/titles. Both God and his only Son share in those terms.

HaHaHa...sorry but that's funny to me. That though Scripture here is crystal clear, you still deny it. So, is the title of God the Father just a title? According to you it's all subjective. Interesting that you do not want to seek the truth. Though all things were created through Him and by Him in the beginning. Your arguments are non-sensical and fall way short even board-line if not heretical. But I am curious on what you have to say. Why does Jesus use these titles? If he is not the Alpha & Omega? Wouldn't this be blasphemous to claim such a title?
​

Where is the Father and the Son mentioned together in unity? Where is the term 'God the Son' ever used in scripture?

This is why you can't grasped it (pun intended). "The Word was with God, and the Word is God". Our position is that there is only One God, but there are 3 persons irreductible and inseparable One God-The Father, Son , and Holy Spirit. Just because God the Son is not mentioned doesn't mean He isn't God (A Se/Ipso). But I'll play along, show me a passage Jesus denying explicitly that He is not God.​

Those two verses are not even comparable nor carry the same meaning. God is the beginning in that He was there from the beginning and in the beginning he spoke creation into being - creation came into being through his 'word'. (By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. [Psalm 33:6]) Jesus was not in the beginning - the 'word', i.e. 'the word made flesh' was not in the beginning

I see from Genesis 1 God's Spirit moving over the waters. God's Spirit moving in creation as God speaks creation into existence:
2)...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.......3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters...and it was so....9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so....11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so., etc. As indicated in Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Well, you like playing games. John explicitly states that the WORD is God. So, why keep dancing around this point. John also states that all things were created through Him and By HIM. So, if all things were created by Him and through HIM. Then he created the heavens and the earth and everything else.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Why would Jesus have to be eternal to empty himself?

If He is a mere man and not divine as say believe. Why does Paul correlate form of God to emptying himself to being born in the form of man? Why does Paul mention form of God at all if he isn't God? And why does he have to empty himself. He's not born of natural corrupt descent. He's born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.

Why does Paul say all that?

 

[Diserner]

Paul says that because the Word was God.

 

[amazing grace]

God possesses a Divine Essence or do you also disagree with this?

It depends on what you mean by 'divine essence'.
God is more than an 'essence'. His divine nature would refer to all of his immutable characteristics which represent his essential being and define him as God-----such as being eternal, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, immortality, unchangeable, etc. --- righteous, holy, perfectly loving, merciful --- God's essence, God's nature is not just a quality God possesses but with all that it includes - it is who He fundamentally IS.

Wrong again. Jesus does possess the full divine divinity as the Father. "I and the Father are one." If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

They are one in purpose and in the context of which this is said - they are one in caring for the sheep.
Jesus is a human being, a man, who perfectly represents God his Father so much so that he told his disciples "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Like Father, like Son! Jesus did receive the Spirit without measure at his baptism. [Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; John 3:34] Jesus was not Almighty God, aka Yahweh, nor was he 'deity', nor was he a god.

Yes, they have a relationship Father and Son. The Father is Unbegotten and the Son is begotten. But the Son's aseity is not begotten. This is where your position conflate or straight out denies the Divine Essence of the Son (Homoousion). You need to understand this or you will fall into heresy which have already been condemned by the church.​

You cannot be 'begotten' and a sei at the same time. Aseity by definition referrs to God having no external cause. It means "from self" or "of itself", indicating God's absolute independence and self-existence.
My salvation is not dependant upon belief in a Triune God but belief in the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested BY God, the Lord's Messiah.

I could care less if the church condemns me scripture does not.....Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God......

We do not deny this! But it is God incarnate who come to redeem His people form their sins. And the Word God, became flesh, to redeem those under the curse of the Law.

Matt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(Immanuel God with us)
​

Jesus was not born from man's corrupted seed, but from the Holy Spirit.​

God was not conceived in the womb of Mary so NO that is not correct. NO God did not come to redeem His people - God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..... Yes, Immanuel does mean 'God with us' - God was with us in and through his human Son, Jesus Christ - whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [Romans 3:25]

True, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High. Jesus was a man, a human being - the offspring of the woman (Genesis 3:15), a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18), the descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and from the lineage of David, etc. from the tribe of Judah.

HaHaHa...sorry but that's funny to me. That though Scripture here is crystal clear, you still deny it. So, is the title of God the Father just a title? According to you it's all subjective. Interesting that you do not want to seek the truth. Though all things were created through Him and by Him in the beginning. Your arguments are non-sensical and fall way short even board-line if not heretical. But I am curious on what you have to say. Why does Jesus use these titles? If he is not the Alpha & Omega? Wouldn't this be blasphemous to claim such a title?​

I'm glad I gave you a laugh although I find nothing laughable.
I don't know why you are bringing in the title God into the equation. The Father is the only true God.
Interesting how you say I deny scripture---it's not denial of the text but a different perspective of the text.
I AM NON SENSICAL! Okay then.......
Even scholars do not know the significance of being the first and last letter of the Greek Alphabet - you can't get around all these terms being synonymous.

• Yes, the Bible calls God and Christ "Alpha and the Omega" and 'the first and the last'.
• The phrase 'Alpha and Omega' in Revelation is used 3x - refers twice to the Father at 1:8 and 21:6; and once to Christ at 22:13.
• The phrase - 'who is and who was and who is to come' - all refer to the Father 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8.
• The phrase - 'the first and the last' - all refer to Christ 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13.
• The phrase - 'the beginning and the end' - one to the Father Rev. 21:6 and the other to Christ 22:13.
• Isaiah's 44:6; 41:4; 48:12 --- refer to Yahweh - He is the eternal One, or at least He preexisted all living things.
• Calling Jesus Christ 'the first and the last' probably means the same as in Rev. 3:14, which Christ calls himself - 'the Beginning of the creation of God. These terms when referring to Christ designate Jesus as the 'head' or 'chief' of the new creation of God because he is the first one resurrected from the dead.
• Both God and Christ calling themselves 'the Alpha and the Omega' and 'the beginning and the end' do not make Christ God, just as calling both God and Christ 'Lord' does not make Christ God.

This is why you can't grasped it (pun intended). "The Word was with God, and the Word is God". Our position is that there is only One God, but there are 3 persons irreductible and inseparable One God-The Father, Son , and Holy Spirit. Just because God the Son is not mentioned doesn't mean He isn't God (A Se/Ipso). But I'll play along, show me a passage Jesus denying explicitly that He is not God.

If John 1:1c read - THE WORD WAS THE GOD, you might have a case - but it doesn't.
I know your position. You can scream it from the rooftops that you believe in one God but a God who is 3 persons is not ONE God.
Inseparable?---then explain how God the Father remained in heaven while God the Son came to earth?
The point is Jesus is the Son of God not 'God the Son'.
I'm glad you think this is a silly little game but one's eternal life weighs in the balance of knowing who God is and who Jesus Christ is --- And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Well, you like playing games. John explicitly states that the WORD is God. So, why keep dancing around this point. John also states that all things were created through Him and By HIM. So, if all things were created by Him and through HIM. Then he created the heavens and the earth and everything else.​

Nope, I don't like playing games when it comes to who our Lord Jesus Christ is or when it comes to the truth of the scripture.
I read Genesis 1 and I quoted exactly what it said - I don't see Jesus mentioned anywhere in the act of creating the heavens and the earth and everything else. I guess I could accuse you of denying scripture but I won't -- your understanding is quite different from mine. Jesus is responsible for the new creation.

 

[amazing grace]

If He is a mere man and not divine as say believe. Why does Paul correlate form of God to emptying himself to being born in the form of man? Why does Paul mention form of God at all if he isn't God? And why does he have to empty himself. He's not born of natural corrupt descent. He's born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.

Why does Paul say all that?

I have given what I consider Philippians 2 to be saying.
How is it that your premise is that he emptied himself of being God and became man yet he never quit being God? Exactly how does that work? Because if he emptied himself of being God then he would no longer be God or else he didn't empty himself.
BUT he can empty himself of his prerogatives as the Son of God, the Messiah, the king of the Kingdom of God.
Jesus was born of a human being, he was born of a human being, Mary. His genealogy, his genesis, his lineage is like any other human being. He died and he rose before his body could see corruption so he must have been corruptible!

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.